Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Liam Madden
Liam Madden (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Vermont's At-Large Congressional District. He lost in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Madden completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Liam Madden was born in Riverhead, New York. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2003 to 2007. He earned an associate degree from Central Texas College in 2006 and a bachelor's degree from Northeastern University in 2012. His career experience includes working in renewable energy, as a farm hand, and as a waiter. Madden has served as director of Iraq Veterans Against the War and as a climate fellow for Echoing Green. He has been affiliated with M.I.T. Solve.[1]
Elections
2022
See also: United States House of Representatives election in Vermont, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House Vermont At-large District
The following candidates ran in the general election for U.S. House Vermont At-large District on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Becca Balint (D) | 62.6 | 176,494 |
 | Liam Madden (R)  | 27.8 | 78,397 | |
 | Ericka Redic (L) | 4.5 | 12,590 | |
 | Matt Druzba (Independent) | 2.0 | 5,737 | |
| Luke Talbot (Independent) | 1.6 | 4,428 | ||
 | Adam Ortiz (Independent) | 1.2 | 3,376 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.4 | 1,004 | ||
| Total votes: 282,026 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Barbara Nolfi (Vermont Progressive Party)
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District
Becca Balint defeated Molly Gray, Louis Meyers, and Sianay Clifford (Unofficially withdrew) in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District on August 9, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Becca Balint | 60.5 | 61,025 |
 | Molly Gray | 36.9 | 37,266 | |
 | Louis Meyers | 1.6 | 1,593 | |
 | Sianay Clifford (Unofficially withdrew) | 0.9 | 885 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 145 | ||
| Total votes: 100,914 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District
Liam Madden defeated Ericka Redic and Anya Tynio in the Republican primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District on August 9, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Liam Madden | 40.0 | 10,701 |
| Ericka Redic | 30.8 | 8,255 | |
 | Anya Tynio | 25.8 | 6,908 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 3.4 | 914 | ||
| Total votes: 26,778 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Vermont Progressive Party primary election
Vermont Progressive Party primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District
Barbara Nolfi advanced from the Vermont Progressive Party primary for U.S. House Vermont At-large District on August 9, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Barbara Nolfi | 82.8 | 439 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 17.2 | 91 | ||
| Total votes: 530 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Liam Madden completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Madden's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- The two party system prevents us from solving our problems. It doesn't represent us, doesn't work, drives us apart, and is controlled by elites. These elites always mange to agree on war, and keeping billionaires at the head of the table. We must create ways for the people to bypass politicians that don't listen to us or don't help to solve our problems effectively. The technology and the processes exists to liberate us from the death grip of the two parties, so that we can work together to build the solutions that have enough public support to make meaningful change.
- Sustainability requires economic restructuring. Climate is far from the only problem with we treat our planet. We've fished over 90% of the big fish out of the oceans. We are extincting species at 100's to 1000's of times faster than history would predict. We are using our precious resources, like fossil fuels, at a rate that will deplete them in our lifetimes. One of the root causes of thissustainability crisis is that our economy is based on a treadmill of interest bearing debt, and that pushes us toward endless economic growth. Things that don't stop growing, are not very sustainable, right? We must redesign our economy around actual physical limits, and around values other than just profit. We need to rebirth democracy to take this on.
- I am not loyal to a party or to even my own self interest, and my history proves that. I am loyal to the people, to the planet that provides for us, and to the principles this country is meant to uphold (and has often fallen short on). Where we disagree most- it is crucial to remember that each "side" is motivated by love. We have far more in common than the media would have us believe. And when we focus on the handful of areas that drive us apart, we are exploited by owners of the levers of power, who prefer that we stay divided so that we remain easier to control. I believe the future will belong to those using technology effectively. We must put that power in the hands of free and open societies. To do so, love and listening is needed.
• Economics, Energy and Environment
These are people who exemplify service. These are people who take risks to push us to expand our perception of what is needed, what is possible, and what is true and meaningful.
Daniel Schmachtenberger is my intellectual role model, and he is an example of being rooted in heart - in caring, while being rigorous in our analytical logic.
Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass represent the people-centered movement builder who use morality and community to influence power.
Charles Eisenstein is an author who inspires me to examine Life through the lens of spiritual reunion -which moves me to help build the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible
JFK, RFK and Abe Lincoln are political leaders who were extremely thoughtful, and had the courage to stand against the power holders of their day in service to the people. and their vision for a more equitable and peaceful world.
Chad Stokes is a rock star/musician who is a creative genius and uses his gifts in service of truth, community and beauty.
Dr Brian Von Herzen - pioneer of marine permaculture, leader of the Climate Foundation, winner of the X Prize,. Brian represents the problem solving genius who uses nuts and bolts and mind and nature - not just political power - to navigate our challenges
Dr Bill Plotkin is the author of one of my favorite books - Nature and the Human Soul. He offers explanatory frameworks about what relationships and pathways help us mature into whole-hearted servants to the beauty and vitality of Life.
• Interview w/ Daniel Schmachtenberger -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO1WVguNQAM
• Professor Nate Hagens on Civilization's Energy Crisis - https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
• Oliver Stone's JFK
• Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States
Books:
• Nature and the Human Soul - Dr Bill Plotkin
• The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible
• A People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn
• The Art of the Impossible - Vaclac Havel
• Capital in the 21st Century - Thomas Piketty
Other Influences:
• Pretty much any interview with Daniel Schmachtenberger
• Journalists I like: Matt Tiabbi, Glenn Greenwald, Whitney Webb, Sy Hersch, Rebel Wisdom, Breaking Points, James Corbett, Aaron Mate, Del Bigtree, Gray Zone, The Onion
• Pretty much any essay by Charles Eisenstein
I think it is crucial that representatives listen deeply to the most compelling arguments of all sides of an issue.
For MUCH more detail about my guiding philosophy- visit my website RebirthDemocracy.com.
I believe I have demonstrated that I am committed to doing what is in service of the people, and the principles that this country is meant to uphold - even when it is extremely costly to me. As a Marine who both offered my life for this country, and perhaps more importantly - organized against the Iraq War while still active duty, I risked everything for what was moral truth to me.
I am also committed to look at problems/issues from multiple perspectives and to have an open mind about unconventional and creative approaches.
As a father, I have a deep commitment to future health and freedom of future generations.
My mother would invite mentally challenged people in our community to our holiday dinners. I admire her generosity and compassion.
My father's life- since I've known him, has been in commitment to recovery to addiction. I admire his generosity and compassion.
• I have a core responsibility to uphold the Constitution and to protect the rights we have been afforded through it.
• I have a core responsibility to think about the consequences of our action for seven generations and to consider the impacts of our work on those with the least power and voice in the process.
I didn't buy the "They hate us for our freedoms" BS- and this curiosity opened the door to a world of learning about the history of U.S. foreign policy that has become central to how I see the world.
Abraham Lincoln said, "If I had eight hours to take down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my ax." Meaning it's a good idea to make sure our tools are ready for the task. Our most powerful tool is our political problem solving systems. And Rebirthing Democracy is the only way to enable us to work together well enough that we can navigate a complex, difficult, and scary challenge like re-designing the political and economic foundations of our world.
Ways and Means
Energy and Commerce
Foreign Affairs
Term limits are not a root cause solution. Public funding of election is much closer. However, term limits will prevent incumbents from entrenching themselves in their positions for decades, which stops the flow of new ideas and new energy into the political conversation.
He walks over to the bar, slams his hand down saying, "GIVE ME A QUART OF RUM!!"
The bar tender pours the drink, and trying to be discrete says, "So hey Pirate, I gotta ask, tell me what's going on with that steering wheel?"
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Madden's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Initiating Our Democracy Simple Version: Fixing the government is my top priority because if we don’t, our other problems will kill us or rob us of the beauty of Life. My Unfiltered Thoughts: We have many serious challenges to contend with, and what is perhaps most worrisome is that our political institutions are unable to deal with them. Focusing on improving our ability to collectively solve problems is one of the most important ways to leverage our efforts to create a just and healthy society. Priorities: BYPASS POLITICIANS - NATIONAL INITIATIVES ↓ The late Senator Mike Gravel ran for president on the platform of giving the citizenry more agency in the lawmaking process. In the majority of states, the people can propose or revoke laws, or officials throurgh ballot initiatives. Why not make that a national right and responsibility? Why not do that online (with appropriate precautions) so we can get public input on policy more than every two-four years? Moreover, in Taiwan, the process of making civic engagement more accessible is being profoundly modernized. This is an encouraging innovation worth studying, adapting or emulating. USE BIG TECH TO INSPIRE COOPERATION AND CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING ↓ As I've said in multiple other places on this site, social media accelerates polarization, undermines our ability to make sense of the world well, and is addictive. It is a powerful tool, it doesn't need to be so bad for our mental health, our culture and our democracy. If people can make algorithms that create bad results, I reckon people can create algorithms that optimize for better social outcomes instead of time in front of a screen getting outraged. TERM LIMITS ↓ We all know the story, incumbents win 90%+ of the races because they have huge fundraising and name recognition advantages, even if they don't have the best ideas. The longer people stay in Washington, the more likely they will be corrupted. SO let's not let them stay too long. I think somewhere around six to eight years for the House of Representatives is a good balance between allowing for fresh ideas while allowing some folks to stay long enough to get stuff done. A MANHATTAN PROJECT FOR A 21ST CENTURY DEMOCRACY ↓ Why do we limit citizen participation in our civic affairs to once every 2 or 4 years? Because that's the only way it could be done when we used horses to carry information. Why not make our engagement more real time? Today's technology can do this easily, (although not without serious securtiy concerns that must be addressed to ensure our government is secure. Blockchain technology may be a basis for such transparency and security.) Can you imagine an online forum which is both simple to use and yet advanced in its behind the scenes architecture, where citizens can propose amendments to policies, and instead of highlighting the most divisive garabage (as the current big tech business model encourages), the forum reveals where there is the most consensus and good will? Just as the most interesting, "upvoted" comments can rise to the top of a comments thread, why can't we design algorithms to show us the ideas that both solve our challenges and build the most unity? Part of the problem with the current system is that with a system that looks to vote yay or nay in order to acheive a 50%+1 majority, we stop improving the policies as soon as it reaches that abysmally low bar. That is a fundamental design flaw that a technologically integrated poltical system could easily address. We could use machine learning to help us iterate potential solutions until they reach 80, 90 or even 95% support. Importantly, the process by which we attempt to propose solutions to our challenges must undergo more rigourous input, and that input does not need to be bottlenecked through (often useless) representatives if we can harness the powerof technology. If remaking government to integrate technology is our priority, and I believe it should be, we must gather the wisest and most trusted experts on this subject to flesh out these kinds of systems. I am not claiming to be the chief scientist, the Robert Oppenheimer of a more wise and resilient political system. I am merely outlining some ideas that can kindle our imagination. I'm quite confident far more elegant and powerful ideas would emerge from a wisely consdiered process of politcal redesign. This process need not completely replace existing institutions. It can begin as a parallel arm of problem solving and we can expand or adjust it as we learn from our experience. RANKED CHOICE VOTING & PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ↓ Have you ever had the Sophie's Choice between your ideals and what you think is "realistic"? The classic lesser of 2 evils choice that makes your stomach turn and always seems to be lowering the bar for what is an acceptable choice? The two party system stifles innovation, limits our choices, and breeds corruption and gridlock. There is another way, ranked choice voting allows you to vote your conscience while not abandoning your pragmatism. Simply put, ranked choice voting gives people the ability to vote for their top preference without "throwing away" their vote for a candidate that may have a smaller chance of winning. The updside is we vote our conscience more often and help more diverse representation to flourish. But Ranked Choice Voting will do little to break the hold of the two party system unless we also make districts proportional. An added benefiet is this will largely nullify gerry-mandering. MAKE POLITICIANS ENGAGE THE MIDDLE ↓ I did a semester abroad in Australia while in college. I learned that voting is mandatory there, and if you don't vote, you get a slap on the wrist fine (around $10). Enough to incentivize people to vote, but not enough to actually harm people. The effect this has is over 90% of people vote. Which means politicians try to speak to the middle more than the extreme bases of their primary voters. While I am agahst at Australian politics right not, I do think we would have a different makeup of Congress, likely a much less gridlocked and more productive one, if we forced politicians to advocate policies more people want. This clearly isn't a silver bullet solution, but it is a doable and meaningful improvement that would have very near term effects. PS- if you're thinking it's a bad idea to force people to vote if they don't have any idea what they're voting for... there could easily be an option on the ballot of "present" or "none of the above" which could act as mechanism to call forth a new batch of candidates if enough people voted "none of the above". A COMPREHENSIVE REVOLUTION IN CIVIC EDUCATION ↓ George Washington commented that democracy is dependent on the population's education in the science of government. All of the above systemic policy prescriptions I advocate are insufficient without a sensemaking revolution rooted in communities of practice where citizens synthesize information and access a collective intelligence in the same manner that colonies of ants know how to build things no single ant can on their own. Practically, this education needs to happen faster than waiting for new generations to be born and graduate from public schools, so, we must do this through social media and through engaging public debates and discourse that look nothing like the sound bite battles which are our current debates. ELECTION FINANCE REFORM ↓ Winning an election under the current system requires hundreds of thousands of dollars. This excludes most working class people from participating, and gives inherant advantage to the kinds of representatives with access to, and perhaps disproportionate sympathies for the economically elite. We must publicly fund elections and provide more comprehenisive debate about substantive policy issues. MAKE PLATO HAPPY - A QUALIFIED AND LIQUID DEMOCRACY ↓ For thousands of years, the critique of democracy has been that the public is not informed enough on many issues to make good choices about them. There is some truth in that critique, hence why a republic was fashioned to both represent the public, yet not give uneducated populations too much say on matters they might not understand well. How can technology and better governmental design help better represent the public, yet also ensure only the best ideas and most informed voices determine policy? Introducing the idea of a qualified democracy. This means that, everyone can still vote for representatives, as is the case now, but also that more than just our current representatives have a voice. If you're a farmer, for example, you can probably make pretty informed policy choices about agriculture. You could take a test that qualifies you to have a vote on agricultural issues that can also be part of determining policy. And if you're not a farmer, but you learn enough about the issue to be able to demonstrate understanding, then you can also participate. And the test is free. And so is the educational material to help you pass the test. And you can take it as many times as you like until you pass. And the test is not about believing any ideology, but demonstrating that you know the arguments of each "side" and what they imply. And again, if you don't have any understanding, you still have representatives you can vote for. And here's the real innovation. Liza, a qualified farmer, in our example, has two votes - her vote for her representative, AND her vote as a citizen policy "expert." And I, the farming laymen, also have two votes, my vote for a represetative, and my vote for a citizen expert, like Liza. So if you and I are not farming experts, we can BOTH vote for Liza, who can accumulate lots of other people's representational trust, and therefore she can accumlate power on this issue. That is the ideal this system strives to achieve - that where there is BOTH trust, and knowledge, their should be power. This is called liquid democracy. Our votes can pass between each other. So if I don't understand something, but I trust you, who does understand it, my vote can *flow* through to you, like liquid. Technology makes qualified and liquid democracy possible. And these two concepts compliment each other, because a qualified democracy, could threaten to under-represent the uneducated. Yet with liquid democracy, we remain represented, even when we are uneducated about certain subjects. And all of this can happen as a compliment to, NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR, our existing consitutional form of representative government.
Simple Version: Capitalism has some virtues and has some wicked problems. I’d like to keep the virtues and make sure the wicked problems don’t destroy the planet and democracy. My Unfiltered Thoughts: Our economy is a machine with parts made of human beings. The machine’s purpose is to turn everything into money. It will succeed unless we consciously change the programming. Priorities: IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, TAX BILLIONAIRES ↓ We should raise taxes on the Amazons, Bezos’, Trumps and Gates of the world. We should invest this revenue into regenerative agriculture, sustainable infrastructure, healthcare, family leave, and education. Taxing wealth and not simply income is the only way to prevent the accelearting concentration of power that threatens democracy. UNIVERSAL BASIC SERVICES ↓ On a deeper level, just raising taxes on Amazon is not a long term solution. The ultra rich still have the means to buy politicians to lower taxes at the next election, and/or hide their wealth from the tax collector, not to mention raising their taxes incentivizes the ultra rich to speed up the process of automating the work force. If the economy proceeds in the direction it’s going, the trends in automation, monopolization, and globalization will make it impossible to ignore the question, “What does an economy without jobs for most people look like?” Presidential candidate Andrew Yang brought the concept of a Universal Income (UI) to the table in response to this question. I appreciate Andrew and I think the attention he brought to this issue was of enormous value. $1000/month, as Andrew suggested, is enough to ensure people continue to work, but they’ll probably take more risks, be more creative, and have more time for quality of life. The problem is, Yang’s proposal requires raising ~$3 trillion in new taxes, (the entire discretionary budget of the US government is around $1.8 trillion) and I don’t think we could raise that much and have room for any other spending, not to mention that I think most of the ultrarich would take there wealth to other countries if taxes were raised that much. I believe the benefits of a UBI are instead best pursued as part of a more comprehensive and elegant shift to a focus on universal public services. Much of the same benefits of a UBI can be acheived via a federal work gaurantee, federally funded (and locally controlled) health clinics, federal funding for 0% home loans and public transportation. Please read the next section on Transitioning Away from Central Banks to put this shift in greater context. Warning, it has a bit to do with monetary policy. :) PUBLIC INVESTMENTS WITHOUT INFLATION ↓ We can’t create an economy that works for everyone if there are far fewer jobs, without reimagining how money is created, who creates it, and the role it plays in the economy. If you want an introduction to the kind of comprehensive change I’m talking about, I invite you to read this article. Warning, it involves monetary policy, so it might be boring or dense, but I found it inspiring. To boil it down to a quick summary, our current economy is based on creating money through bank debt. Debt creates a treadmill that encourages endless expansion (like cancer), bullshit work, and the conversion of all of existence into consumerist buying and selling that generates interest for the already ultrarich. In the (not too) long term we need a monetary framework that decentralizes power, mitigates runaway feedback loops of wealth, and yet does not engage in a totalitarian/utopian quest to prevent all inequality. Therefore, transitioning the power of creating money from central banks to individuals’ is core to a society that functions ethically as we transition, inevitably to more automation and fewer jobs. We can create stability (avoiding inflation) by setting pricing in terms of the Universal Dividend- the payment created by citizens instead of central banks. Or, even without these large innovations, we can still use money creation to far more public advantage than most economists and policy makers ever believed possible. Modern Monetary Theory, (MMT) is a framework that offers profoundly important insights into the role of government spending and money creation in the economy. In short, money creation simply does not de facto cause inflation. Throughout history, where there has been the most deficit spending does not even correlate to where inflation has become an issue. Meaning, as long as careful choices on spending are made in recognition of where actual resources are available, large deficits can be used to make important public investments with little impact on inflation. This is clearly validated by a cursory look at economic history. Where there has been inflation, like there is right now, it is almost always a result of a lack of supply for needed resources Remember, money is just a symbol that has value because we agree it has value. We agree it has value primarily because governments demand we pay taxes with it. We can create it however we want, no divine authority said it has to be created by unaccountable central banks, and governments do not obey the same set of rules that private actors must. As long as the way we create money does not cause instability (inflation or deflation), then there is no reason to not at least experiment with new methods if they have potential to solve urgent challenges. PUBLIC SERVICE CORPS AND FEDERAL JOBS GUARANTEE ↓ I support creating a large public service corps that is used to build needed public infrastructure like public transportation, housing, education, healthcare, and regenerative agricultural resources. SUPPORT AND TRANSITION TOWARD MORE WORKERS COOPERATIVES ↓ I would like to see a massive tax incentive, and other public subsidies for businesses offering meaningful avenues for employee ownership. And disincentives for companies that offer no such pathways. We live a huge portion of our lives at work. These should be democratic ins
Simple Version: Technology gives us the power of gods. Without the wisdom and love of gods, we will destroy ourselves. My Unfiltered Thoughts: Nuclear weapons marked the first time that technology enabled humans to irreparably harm both the project of civilization and the earth itself. Entire world systems were built to safeguard against the unwise use of that technology. Today, we face more potentially catastrophic technologies and social/ecological dynamics than most people are even aware of, nevermind having global systems of safeguard for: artificial intelligence, biological gene editing, social media driven polarization, insect die-off, the list goes on, yet the inadequacy of existing systems to protect us from these risks is barely on the radar of our political discourse. We need both systems (institutions, legal frameworks, infrastructure etc) and virtues (wisdom, compassion, resilience etc) to protect us from our own insatiable urge to innovate, which drives change faster than we can create protections, or even understand. If technology is changing faster than government can even keep track of, never mind regulate, then we need fundamentally new thinking about both the design of government and the responsibilities of individuals. This is not a time to elect people wanting to score points in a culture war, or seeking to make life a bit better at the margins with promises only as bold as “more broadband”. This is a time to kindle a renaissance. We ought to elect someone who acknowledges this need and the crises that have illuminated it. Priorities: CONVENE OUR WISEST AND MOST TRUSTED MINDS ↓ … to help map the root causes of our predicament, and outline the possible avenues of mitigation. Particularly, focus should be applied to ameliorating the multi-polar trap pertaining to the paradigm shifting competitive advantage given to the first developer of winner-take-all-enabling artificial intelligence. The difference between this convention and the closest parallel we might recognize from history, (the constitutional convention or the Bretton Woods convention), is that this should be recorded for public transparency, and open to public comment and input. If I could suggest a few wise minds, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Charles Eisenstein, Jordan Hall, Marianne Williamson, Rupert Sheldrake, John Vervaeke, and Bill Plotkin would certainly make the cut. STEWARD THE INFO COMMONS (IE - REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA) ↓ …to foster empathy, good faith, substantive debate, and stronger emphasis on shared values and common ground. (This does not mean promoting censorship.) GET MUCH BETTER AT LEARNING AND TEACHING HOW TO DEAL WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX PROBLEMS ↓ -Pronto! -particularly the "collective action" problems of tragedies of the commons, arms races, and prisoner's dilemmas
Simple Version: Wind & solar are not enough. Oil & gas will run out. Let’s expand the conversation. My Unfiltered Thoughts: We need to invest in energy sources that cause less pollution and will last longer. Professor Nate Hagans of the University of Minnesota cites that if we grow our economy at 3% per year, we will use the same amount of energy in the next three decades as we have in the last 10,000 years. That is impossible. Those on the right don’t often like to acknowledge that we only have 40 years of oil and gas left. Those on the left often don’t like to acknowledge that wind and solar require enormous amounts of land (up to 72% according to Harvard Professor David Kieth.) Energy is the basis of all of our reality. No matter what social system we re-design, or institution we develop, we will still need to solve the problem of our enormous differential in energy used vs energy acquired. In relative terms, we acquire a drop of oil each day through photosynthesis, we expend 100 million gallons. My college thesis was on “Energy Return on Energy Investment Through the Lens of Systems Thinking.” The point is, re-inventing energy systems is foundational to sustainable civilization. Solar and wind are important, but TOTALLY INADEQUATE without reductions in overall energy use. I don’t have a blind faith that innovation and technological advancement will always be there to rescue us from resource depletion. Every civilization has fallen to this dynamic, and while technology and the discovery of fossil fuels has helped us stave off that fate, I foresee the possibility it catches up to us too unless we become conscious of the possibility in time. A NEW MANHATTAN PROJECT FOR NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Invest $30-100 billion in Manhattan Project style, “Swing for the fences” technological advances in energy storage and generation that makes our current best bets, solar, wind and nuclear look pre-historic. This investment should include expansion on recent breakthroughs in geothermal and Hydrino technology. BUILD MODERN, COST EFFECTIVE, AND SAFE NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES Hard Fact- Solar and wind alone cannot replace fossil fuels. We must invest $200 billion in a new generation of nuclear. Learn More. BUILD OUR SOCIETY FOR PEOPLE INSTEAD OF CARS Invest $5-25 billion into better mass transit and walkable city planning and infrastructure. My influences: Project Drawdown, Dr Brian Von Herzon, MIT Solve, Echoing Green, Taylor Wilson, Greentown Labs, Michael Shellenberger Other Priorities:
Simple Version: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My Unfiltered Thoughts: If you measure the wrong thing, you do the wrong thing. When we focus on health insurance coverage instead of focusing on improving actual health, we, predictably, will not see much improvement in health. While I support Medicare for all over the alternative of fully privatized and extractive health care industries, I think even M4A is missing the larger picture, which is that even with government health insurance, hospital’s costs are not subject to the moderating forces of competition in an open marketplace. The market has failed in this industry. We pay more than any other country for worse results. Priorities: INTRODUCE COMPETITION Introduce competition to the industry by giving localities federal funding to build free/at cost community clinics and hospitals. This will rapidly drive down costs and expand treatment options. OVERHAUL THE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMANS SERVICES Our regulatory watchdogs in the medical-pharmaceutical arena are now the archetypal examples of captured, subservient lapdogs. We must rebuild these agencies with more inherent checks and balances, including limiting private sector revolving doors. We must provide vastly more public funding for the research into unprofitable but effective treatments. FOCUSED PROTECTION FOR COVID 19 I believe we must accept that SarsCov2 is an endemic virus (has become a part of nature which we cannot feasibly remove) that humans must learn to live with intelligently, with the aim of rendering future mutations less virulent through improving access to safe and affordable treatments, careful exposure of the healthy to virus, and the continued commonsense protection of the vulnerable. I agree with the world class scientists comprising the Great Barrington Declaration (Harvard, Stanford and Oxford’s senior epidemiologists) who acknowledge that focused protection of the vulnerable need not come at great cost to our economy, democracy, education, individual rights, or social fabric. Furthermore, we must create clear standards to measure how transmissible and lethal a disease must be before governments or health authorities have any legal basis to implement drastic public health measures such as lockdowns, mandates, propaganda, or similar restrictions. MATURITY REGARDING DEATH Much of what drives enormous costs in the healthcare field are treatments given to people like my grandma Bridget. She was in her 80s, when she died of lung failure. Weeks of hospice care in a hospital can be incredibly costly, and often the treatments offered promise nothing but the hope of a few more weeks or months of living that bears no resemblance to life. I don’t know how government can influence this very delicate subject, but I know if we could accept our mortality better, as a culture, we would probably also live more fully, and die more gracefully. I am open to medically assisted suicides in the context of people who still have their faculties and wish to die in dignity. My influences: Dr John Iionides (Stanford), Dr Suneptra Gupta (Oxford), Dr Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), Dr Jay Battacharia (Standford) Dr Vannay Prassad (UCSF), Dr Marty Macary (Johns Hopkins)
As the independent in this election, I have the unique responsibility to remind everyone that it’s very helpful to begin this question with the perspective that each side is driven by love. And when we do that, it’s much more difficult to make monsters, or caricatures of each other. I believe the vast majority of people on both sides want the best for everyone involved, we want women to have choice over their bodies. And we want babies to be welcomed in this world by families who choose them, and love them, and can take care of them. My first priority is to encourage us all to remember that we do share this common ground and that can help us disagree on this without polarizing so divisively. But my primary logic as a public servant is that it is a dangerous precedent to allow the government authority over our medical decisions. So if I have to remove all the nuance for the sake of a quick answer, then I support the right to choose because I don’t want the government dictating our personal medical decisions. However, if I get to keep some nuance, there are some aspects of this debate I do find morally complicated, and I am willing to leave some grounds for those debates to happen at the state level. Pre-fetal-viability abortion, to me, is a healthcare option that is a part of bodily autonomy and it should be available to all women regardless of your state’s political or cultural makeup. I think this right to bodily autonomy is already protected by the constitution in multiple ways. But clearly the courts disagree. So, the options to affirm that right are: 1) A constitutional amendment explicitly affirming our right to govern our own bodies. 2) A federal law that supersedes the state laws. 3) Changing the make up of the Supreme Court. I am in favor of all three. I would prefer the first. The second is the most realisitic. “But what about late term abortions"? Like almost everyone, I am repulsed by the idea of a 9 month pregnancy being aborted for trivial or heartless reasons. However, I am also aware that only 1.3% of abortions happen in the second half of pregnancies (post 21 weeks), and any abortion in the last trimester is an exceedingly rare event. Basic logic, and my experience as a parent tells me that almost every single person who has carried a baby to the third trimester intends to keep that baby, and only a fetal anomaly or other tragic situation has made a later term abortion a decision they had to consider. I don’t believe these tragic situations require further government intrusion in our most personal decisions. Ironically, one thing that would prevent more late term abortions, while protecting the choice of women, would be more access to early abortions and contraception, which I support. However, I concede that post-viability abortion is a morally complex issue. While, personally, I err on the side of protecting choice, I also see where each state should have some leeway to decide this issue. I’d prefer to live in a state that enshrines protection for bodily autonomy throughout the pregnancy, and gives people the benefit of the doubt that any late term abortion is not the parent’s first choice. But I also accept that post viability abortion has legal implications for the unborn child, and that determining that issue on a state by state basis is a reasonable compromise. I also honor the potential compromise that no one with strong religious views against abortion should be forced to pay for post viability abortion services. AND, yet more nuance… if state’s do decide to regulate post viability abortions, I think the federal government should mandate that such states should also be responsible to make adoption and maternal care extremely accessible and affordable. This issue is divisive enough to severely wound our political and cultural cohesiveness. I am aiming for a policy position that the great majority of people, on both sides, can agree with, as a compromise, in order to preserve our future as a functional political entity. That compromise is briefly summarized here:
Simple Version: Allow us to listen to experts with dissenting opinions. Science dies when debate is squashed. My Unfiltered Thoughts: Skepticism is warranted whenever governments and media collaborate to delegitimize any perspective that isn’t theirs. To many people, the fact that I oppose vaccine mandates, mask mandates, lockdowns, and censorship in response to Covid-19 may seem shocking. I therefore want to take responsibility for explaining what information and rationale justifies my position. Priorities: Majorities of Experts Have Been Wrong:
The Media and Government Have Lied to the Public:
STOP REPORTING MISLEADING TESTS RESULTS ↓ The inventor of the PCR test won the Nobel Prize. His name was Kary Mullis. He warned that the PCR can be used to "find anything in anyone" and that can make it liable to be easily misinterpreted. The journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases found that over 95% of the PCR tests did not indicate enough virus to culture (not enough to make you sick) when conducted the way most tests are conducted. The NY times corroborated that PCR testing labs routinely conducted them in a way that would report positive cases where no viable amount of virus was actually present, making “over 90%” of results essentially false positive. This discrepancy between what counted as a "positive case" in the media and what was meaningful in terms of honestly communicating risk to the public drove much of the unnecessary fear. What's even worse, is the lack of regulation on testing makes much of the public data much less useful. CENSORSHIP IS DANGEROUS TO DEMOCRACY ↓ There is a saying that if the road is covered in thorns, it is easier to wear sandals than to pave the road. If items of disinformation amongst our information ecosystems are the thorns on our road, then critical thinking can be our sandals. Meaning, we don't need to wade into the incredibly precarious waters of censorship, ie giving governments and government-collaborating tech oligarchs the monopoly on what is allowable public discourse, if we can instead encourage the media literacy skills needed to exist in an incredibly fraught and chaotic media environment. Said shorter- improved public sense-making, not authoritarian control of free expression, is the only way to protect democracy in our endeavor to navigate these troubling times. To those who support the censoring of dissenting views, I wonder how comfortable you would be with Donald Trump having such power? EXPLAIN THAT ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD IS RARE ↓ In a meta-analysis of numerous studies published in Journal of the American Medical Association Network, Dr Madewell and coauthors, found that the spread of CV19 among people living with an asymptomatic CV19 case, was less than a 1% chance of transmission. A screening of over 10 million people in Wuhan China using contact tracing data points showed zero instances of asymptomatic transmission amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic infectees. Both the WHO and Dr Anthony Fauci have said that asymptomatic infection has historically never been the driver of outbreaks. In Virology Journal, researchers measured the rate of infection from 1,557 contacts of asymptomatic infectees, only 1 became infected (0.06%). That number would need to be roughly 1000-2000 times higher to meaningfully contribute to the continuation of a pandemic virus It seems most of the policies that threaten economic livelihoods and civil liberties are premised on the weak case that non sick people pose a threat to public health. I have not read extensively the literature which argues for asymptomatic spread's significance. I have read some, and all that I have seen are investigations into tiny numbers of people, they rarely distinguish between positive PCRs and actual infections, they often show only metrics like viral load increase prior to symptoms, but do not actually measure the transmission rate during those presymptomatic periods, and most importantly they never show that this transmission happens at a significant enough rate to actually meaningfully contribute to the spread of the virus. VACCINES MUST NOT BE MANDATED ↓ The new CV19 vaccines have demonstrated an ability to lessen the risk of hospitalizations and death due to Covid 19, according to most data available. Taking a vaccine is a reasonable precaution if you are in a high risk group for covid, or regardless of your risk -if you would sleep better with the greater protection it affords. However, forcing others to take the vaccine against their will does not offer a vaccinated person any additional protection. Furthermore, forced medical intervention undermines people's rights to their own medical choices, and it is a precedent governments may abuse in the future. I believe it is possible humanity could encounter diseases dangerous enough to warrant such risky policies, but covid 19 is not dangerous enough, nor is the vaccine effective enough to sacrifice such important ideals and safeguards. Given the diminishing protection the vaccines appear to confer as time passes and new variants emerge, and given the numerous concerning facts about how the trials were conducted, reasonable skepticism in the long term cost-benefit value of the new inoculations is justified, especially in the mandating of these very new treatments. REMIND- MASKS PROVIDE NEGLIGIBLE PROTECTION ↓ Prior to 2020, the evidence for masks preventing viral transmission in a community setting was so lacking that masking the public was not part of pandemic response guidance in nearly all western nations. In fact, that is why when Dr Fauci said there was no benefit to masking in this context, he was completely supported by the scientific evidence at the time. Masks stop droplets, not aerosolized particles (viruses primary means of transmission) The entire premise of masking is that asymptomatic spread is a meaningful threat, which seems poorly supported to me (see above item for references) Only after masking became a political hot button has “evidence” of the effectiveness of masks been forthcoming. In my review of the evidence for masks benefits available on the CDC website:
ESTABLISH TRANSPARENT VACCINE INJURY REPORTING ↓ Vaccine injuries are not being monitored transparently The NIH asked Harvard Pilgrim researchers to help improve the monitoring of vaccine adverse events in 2007-2010. Those researchers reported back that the existing reporting system may capture as little as 1% of actual adverse events. A study at Brigham and Womens hospital in Boston found a rate of observed adverse events ~40x higher than what the NIH’s system was detecting CDC researchers studied VAERS under-reporting for 7 different vaccines, and found the system under reported the investigated adverse events, capturing on average only 32%. Passive reporting, such as used in VAERS, is commonly considered the worst way to gather high quality data. The CDC claims to use more than just VAERS to monitor vaccine safety signals. They say they use a database of the largest healthcare providers in the country called the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). This database should be made public (while protecting patient privacy) to independent researchers. What is the rationale for preventing such research? There is no good reason that higher quality tracking of adverse events would not be prioritized prior to recommending a product to the entire population for which pharma companies have zero legal liability. I am NOT saying the vaccines are dangerous. I AM saying the safety monitoring is too obscured to transparently verify if the vaccines are more dangerous than claimed. If they are as safe as the CDC claims, they are a miracle of modern technology. If they are as liable to cause adverse events as what VAERS data, multiplied by 100 would imply, then pursuing other treatments becomes an indisputable priority. I don't know. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I am disturbed that having the audacity to want better information somehow invites attacks as an anti-science lunatic. I hope being clear about my concerns, and the evidentiary basis of those concerns, makes it clear that my skepticism is in good faith and grounded in credible evidence.
QUICK VERSION: Liberals often under-value the importance of the citizenry having the ability to defend itself against governments doing cruel things. I was a Marine who saw our government impose its will , violently, on an entire population of civilians. Do you think it is wise to assume that same government would only do so to foreign civilians? Conservatives often overlook that the Second Amendment calls for the right to bear arms in relation to well regulated militias. How do we correct each side’s blind spots, identify shared values, and build common ground to reduce gun violence and still protect the second amendment? Read on to see how I would achieve this. FULL VERSION: Self defense is an important part of the value of the Second Amendment, and I think weapons for self defense and hunting are indisputably worth protecting. But to me, the Second Amendment’s primary value is to protect the ability of the citizenry to coordinate defense against governments that attempt to harm and dominate the population. All rights come with responsibilities. To me, the right to bear arms comes with a **responsibility** to bear arms in service to a community's defense, even - especially against authoritarian governments. Importantly, as it relates to preserving the right to bear arms while reducing gun violence, the Constitution implies that a right to bear arms is bound to the idea of a "well regulated militia." However, if that "militia" was confined to a state's national guard, which is part of the chain of command of the federal government, that would defeat the purpose of having an independent defense against the federal government. Therefore, to have any way to enforce that this right (to bear arms) and this responsibility (to be part of a well regulated entity) remain in balance, and to also have independence of these groups from the federal government, I believe we need community defense organizations to ensure that those bearing arms are responsible to their community defense, and have the competence, discipline, and trust of their communities needed to carry out that defense effectively and ethically. I think the best way to mediate this regulation is at the local level. Local communities should set their own standards, but those standards for their community defense must be overseen with federal protection to ensure that localities do not onerously preclude participation. For instance, anyone with an honorable discharge from the military, (and without a violent criminal record) should be considered competent, disciplined, and trusted enough to participate in a locality's citizen defense force. Any average citizen meeting basic standards of accountability should be allowed to participate in these organizations. And these community defense groups would only regulate weapons needed for community defense (assault weapons), whereas self defense and hunting weapons should remain freely accessible to law abiding citizens. An added benefit to this interpretation of the Second Amendment, is that I believe it preserves access to arms, as the constitution clearly affords, but it will also dramatically reduce mass shootings by ensuring that those with access to the most military-applicable firearms are those vetted by responsible and trusted members of our communities. As far as conventional policies go:
Do I believe descendants of the enslaved experience full opportunity and equal justice in the United States? No. .. and we must address this immediately. Do I believe all white people are white supremacists, that we must eliminate (or demonize) police, or that we need a federal department of anti racism with the power to veto or amend any law? No. … and using race as a lens to see society can create profound insights that clarify what our society values and what it only pays lip service to, …. and yet, using ONLY race as a lens to view society will create a completely distorted worldview that destroys empathy and the opportunity to form the meaningful connections where true empathy and community can be built. Priorities: PAY THE DEBT OWED The United States government promised the enslaved population of southern states 40 acres and a mule. It later welched on that promise. While my ancestors were not here at that time, and arguably did not benefit in very measurable ways from slavery, as most of our anscestors did not, I can still recognize that an enormous moral crime was committed against black people. When there are crimes, restitution is appropriate. I didn't commit this crime, so why am I obligated to pay a debt? I am not obligated, but I still want this debt paid. And I see that our nation will not be able to move forward in one spiritual piece until this debt is paid. So I am willing to pay a part of it. That is why I support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved. POLICE WITH EMPATHY I know enough people in law enforcement to know that most of them are beautiful, loving and kind people doing a very stessful job because they want to be of service to people in need. I have been mistreated by police enough to know that some are total power tripping assholes.
EDUCATE WITH EQUITY Funding education through property taxes is one of the primary drivers of staggering educational inequities. I think finding other primary funding sources for education is critical.
This is not just a feel-good sentiment. Returning health, diversity and stability to our ecology is a survival imperative. Simply switching our industry and society to renewable fuel sources is: A) not able to support the economic output we expect given the structure of our economy and B) not enough to prevent the likely scenario of ecological systems collapse caused by continued patterns of resource use and waste streams. Carbon emissions are relevant, but not the most important factor in whether our civilization can create a mutually beneficial relationship with the earth. Healthy ecosystems are the real thing to achieve, carbon emissions are just a clumsy proxy. The metaphor that most clearly guides necessary action is that the earth is a living being, and that the beings she hosts are her cells, and the ecosystems in which they self organize are her organs. Humans, likewise, can be viewed as a global “super organism,” and we need to make conscious choices about what kind of relationship these two global beings should have. I’d like that relationship to be a loving marriage. SCALE UP PERRENIAL AND REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE ↓ I support massive investment and incentivization in employee owned farms that build soil health, manage lands to promote diversity and health in our crops and farming practices. These investments should be made with forefront in our minds beginning the transition of our food system to perrenial crops that require less energy, tilling and effort. Energy in the future will be more expensve. Right now, every calorie of food costs us 14 calories of fossil fuel energy. We must bring the "energy cost" of food down if we are to keep a stable society as conventional energy supplies dwindle. That means incentivizing more human powered food system. Cover cropping is probably the "lowest hanging fruit" in respect to soil health. More visionary, we should begin and expand upon the research and investment needed to replace corn, soy and wheat as the backbone of our diet with perrrenial based alternatives. SCALE UP MARINE PERMACULTURE ↓ Stewarding a healthy ocean is paramount for global food security. Dr Brian Von Herzen is pioneering absolutely inspiring techniques to protect fish populations and restore carbon balance to marine ecosystems. I would support investments to scale his work. TRANSITION FROM LIMITED FOSSIL FUELS WHILE BRINGING ALTERNATIVES ONLINE ↓ It takes more oil to find and extract oil than it used to. Jed Clampett, the Beverly Hillbilly, shot at the ground and oil bubbled out. Today, we drill at the bottom of the ocean, and drill 3,000 feet into shale, the last known conventional reserve. My point is, it is becoming more scarce while energy demand increases, causing prices to rise along with the risk of resource conflict. Innovations in efficiency, like an engine that gets 100 miles per gallon, or innovations in production, like tar sand extraction might kick the can down the road a decade or two, but it won't solve the underlying problem - fossil fuels are running out at an accelerating pace. What's more, improved efficiency tends to just increase the amount we use. In energy-nerd circles, this is known as Jeavon's Law. It means that our challenge is not just about technology, it's about human behavior, and social organization. We need to find ways to navigate a very tricky problem, which, simply stated is: We humans want more, more, more, and more, more, more requires economic activity, and economic activity IS TETHERED to energy use. Yet, energy is, practically speaking, limited. Fossil energy is limited by the 40 years or so of it the earth has left. Solar and wind are limited by the amount of land we have (or are willing) to smother in machines with 30 year lifespans. (72% of land is required to meet current energy needs with wind power, according to Harvard Professor David Kieth). So, if that's the problem, then we need to consider what a future society can look like where we create physical, relational, emotional and spiritual wellbeing, and creative freedom - while living on an energy budget. Hmmm. Well, there's no doubt in my mind we can create far more well being with less energy. After all, our best experiences in life are the time spent with loved ones, in nature, learning and creatively expressing ourselves. These tend to not be very energy expensive activities. BUT! this whole living on an energy budget idea contradicts the economic dogma of never-ending growth. We can't BOTH live on an energy budget AND grow, grow, grow, which the modern captilaist economy requires. Requires? Yes, first of all, interest bearing debt is the basis of all money in our economy, and paying interest forces growth. More importantly, capitalism does provide more comfort and resources to the population (while concentrating wealth at the top 1%), but that only works when the whole economic pie is growing. Otherwise, without growth, it just concentrates the benefits of society's wealth, creating a caste system with no social mobility. Think about it, how many ordinary people become wealthy when the economy stops growing (ie, during recessions or depressions)? Not many, right? On the other hand, how many wealthy people stay wealthy during recessions or depressions? Most of them, right? Meaning, economic growth is a requirement to solve the problem of "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer." Growth means, "The rich get richer, and some of the poor can get richer too." Without growth, it's back to the Hunger Games for the ordinary people. So, the crux of this seems to be, can we change our economic system to stop growth for the sake of growth, (cancer much?) and yet also meet more of our needs and do more of what we love? My logic leads me here, we must enact a peaceful world order where we: A) don't fight for energy resources B) do increase the standard of living of the world's poor C) do preserve open societies (not shove authoritarian social control down the throats of ordinary people so that a global elite can enjoy their seats atop a pyramid of power and luxury) D) organize society around relationships, health, creative expression, and a perfect marraige of civilization and the more than human world... and not the pursuit of the more, more, more that would drive us toward resource war, permanent poverty for much of the world, and authortarian social systems needed to enforce the rules set up by the rulers. Yes, we can create this world. But not with the problem solving tools (political and economic systems) we have. The winners of the old game want to keep the rules exactly as they are. As it relates to transitioning from fossil fuel, the market will help us do that, because it is already becoming more expensive to use fossil fuels, and alternatives will be invested in. But that won't happen, in my opinion, fast enough, or wisely enough, or affordably enough for the vast majority of us to avoid the consequences of incredible societal volatility caused by energy price spikes, UNLESS we supplement market forces with conscious public investments in new energy, agricultural, housing and transportation infrastructure. GREEN DESERTS ELIMINATE WASTE PROTECT FORESTS AND WETLANDS
Of all the issues listed here, this is perhaps the one I’ve spent the most time investigating and acquiring insight on. Even if we create better institutions, better social organization systems, and better technologies or practices to responsibly use technologies, we still need to orient those institutions, technologies, and the effort of social organization as a whole toward creating meaningful lives. Otherwise, what’s the point? Not only are meaningful livelihoods, communities and larger stories extremely important in their own right, but having fulfilled and whole people will reciprocally help us to better solve these incredibly complex and daunting challenges. In fact, I’d argue… only self-realizing people will contribute with the needed quality of thought and action. Most people hate their jobs. Suicide among young people is rising alarmingly. This year, I lost my brother to addiction, which is tragically becoming epidemic. Work, patriotism, scientific progress and /or religion used to be the default source of meaning people looked to, these were the larger stories people placed their individual stories into. Those old stories are losing their power. Work itself may soon become inaccessible to many through the advent of accelerating automation. Restoring our ability to create meaning requires that we adopt new stories that can fill a “god sized hole” in the human psyche. This is largely a role for culture, not for government. But that does not mean government should abdicate our responsibility to contribute where the opportunity exists. Here are some of the higher priorities I see in how we can contribute to the meaning crisis via government. Priorities: Under Construction SERVICE PATHWAYS OTHER THAN THE MILITARY INCENTIVIZE AND BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMMUNITY RE-EMPHASIZE MORALITY, INITIATION AND PSCYHO-EMOTIONAL HEALTH INTO EDUCATION SPEAK OFTEN ABOUT THE NEED FOR STORIES THAT GIVE US MEANING
Who doesn’t like to cleanse the palate with some fringe weirdness and other off-the-beaten-path topics that might make us chuckle or ponder. Enjoy. KILL AND STERLIZE ILLEGAL ALIENS First of all... THEY'RE TAKIN' OUR JOBS! Second of all, how many good folk need to be abducted and anal probed before we make a hard line in the sand? Third of all, some of them, I'm sure, are good people, despite their disturbingly big eyes and long fingers. Wait... are we talking abou the same kind of aliens? SEND FLAT EARTHERS TO OUTERSPACE Bezos can surely pay for this. We can make it a reality TV show while we're at it. It will be a transcendent experience. MANDATORY ACID TRIPS FOR CEOS AND CONGRESS-PERSONS I'm well aware that Joe Rogan is a controversial figure. But if he's ever said anything that stuck in my mind, it's this idea, and I'll paraphrase- that all CEOs of oil companies and mining conglomerates, should be required to take copious psilocybin mushrooms in the area they operate before they begin any project to destroy an ecosystem. I fully endorse this. I'd extend it to be a requirement for Congress too. I assure you, I'd qualify. In all seriousness, hallucinagen assisted psycho therapy is a profoundly important emerging trend that has incredibly important implications in the world of mental health. These medicines, when used with respect and wisdom, hold incredible power in placing us in the web of existence as humble servants to the Life of the cosmos. GET MEDEVIL ON PEDOPHILE PRIESTS I don't think high level democrats are pedophile cannibals. (Ironically, I can't help but notice that both high level democrats AND republicans were present at Jeffrey Epstein's parties.) If the Catholic Church pedophelia scandal has thaught us anything, it's that people in trusted positions can do breathtakingly cruel and self serving things. It would be foolish to think only Catholic priests take advantage of vulnerable people like this. I don't subscribe to Qanon. Have never read a "Q-drop," and don't really know too much about it except that they believed pedophelia was a rampant problem in the upper echelons of society. I don't give any credence to theories based so deeply on the logic of "Trust me, I'm an (anonymous) insider." But after having read the book The Franklin Coverup, by former Nebraska state senator, John Decamp, on his oversight committee investigation into elite pedophelia parties in the 1980s, I don't think we should completely throw the baby out with the bath water and say that this pathological behavior is exceedingly rare, either. After all, the person third in line to the presidency, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was convicted of such behavior. A PONY IN EVERY DRIVEWAY While I hope to show that I am offering a substatively different critique of social strucutre and analysis of our challenges than most of those in government, I still like to be competitive. So if pandering and bribery are the game, how would you like a pony you gorgeous, brilliant paragon of vritue, you? God Bless America. JFK, MLK, 9/11 AND EPSTEIN Conspiracies are not even close to being the total explaination of why the world is on a crash course. I would say incentive structures and group think explain much more of why corruption and domination seem so all-encompassing. However, conspiracies are real. The very definition of conspiracy makes them unavoidable realities: "People making plans to do unethical things in secret." Given that unethical people rarely hatch their plans on CSpan, that makes "conspiracies" an inevitability. While they are not fully explanatory, being open to explore conspiracy research, (the more credible and supportable arguments anyway), does help:
And just to be clear. I've researched more than a few conspiracies and to let you know where I stand:
Those are significant enough descrepancies in the official narratives of some of the most consequential events in our recent history, that I do think there is good reason to entertain views that contradict the consensus of those in power, and when warranted, to allow those views to contribute to a holistic assessment of reality. But, so too must skepticism be applied to the claims of all parties. I am not making claims that I definitively believe a certain conclusion is the only explanation of any of the above scenarios. Iam saying that I believe they are descrepancies that warrant the courage to withstand taboo so that we can discuss issues that undermine dominant narratives more openly. MICROCHIPS AND OTHER DEPOPULATION INVESTMENT TIPS MIND CONTROL BROKEN LEGS DON'T EXIST Some folks don't think Sars Cov2 exists because it hasn't been purified to their standards. Empricism folks. Come back to us. 5G GENOCIDE I've seen nothing that credibly supports 5G being used to activate mind control microchips. But neither do I have any confidence that the health impacts of 5G, or really any commercial radiation, have been studied independently and rigorously enough.[2] |
” |
| —Liam Madden's campaign website (2022)[3] | ||
See also
2022 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on June 4, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Liam Madden for Congress, “Home,” accessed September 21, 2022
